Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Ban products of slaughter

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 21 March 2008
David Martin MEP reminds us the cruel slaughter of hundreds of thousands of seals in Canada is shortly to resume (Platform, 19 March) and calls on the UK government to ban the import of seal skins.
Many countries have banned the import of seal products or have taken steps towards a ban. In September 2006 the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on the European Commission to ban the trade in all harp and hooded seal products. The UK, along with other member states, is pressing for an EU ban on the trade in seal products, but this will take time. Our government should introduce a national trade ban until an EU ban comes into force.

Until then people should be aware that such fur will be used to make products on sale here, including sporrans.

ROSS MINETT
Advocates for Animals
Queensferry Street
Edinburgh



The full article contains 148 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 20 March 2008 8:31 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 21/03/2008 07:05:50
How can you tell a seal from a walrus?

By the club marks on its head !!!
2

rpb,

21/03/2008 07:17:06
Is it true that the Kenyan branch of Advocates for Humans has taken a vote to stop its lion members from eating men?
3

,

21/03/2008 08:00:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

Unimpressed one,

21/03/2008 09:07:01
Ross Minett - the one man ban wagon.
5

G,

dundy 21/03/2008 10:01:13
No need to ban - just show your disgust for the eijits who wear fur.....
6

James F,

East Ren 21/03/2008 21:32:18
#4. Don't think so. I'm in Ross's band, so that's 2 of us. Plus I know a couple of other guys who are in the band as well, so you're well wrong. Anything more intelligent to say?

#1 Nabodican the numpty?

#2 rpb ditto?

#3 I can see where you're coming from Inf, but I can't see where you're going to. It is absolutely self-evident that the traditional methods of Jewish and Muslim meat preparation were entirely sensible 4000 and 1400 years ago respectively, when the Torah and Koran were written and when these methods were effective in reducing parasitic infection from sheep and goats under a hot Middle Eastern sun (presumably these methods were not effective for reducing infection from pig meat which is why both religions abhor the use of pork).

This is all history. There is no longer any medical benefit to humans from killing animals using these primitive and cruel methods. Modern animal hygiene and abattoir inspection are far more effective in reducing disease from livestock than halal and kosher kidology.

But the real mystery is why the majority of Jews, Christians and Muslims still kill any animals for food. The holy books of all these religions make it quite clear that people should not kill animals simply for fun or pleasure: modern nutritional science makes it transparent that people are healthier eating a well-balanced non-animal diet than they are eating animal flesh or dairy products. It follows that no-one who believes in God (and for that matter, no self-respecting Atheist either) should kill an animal for food or get somebody else to do it for them. But it happens all the time; killing animals for fun and the "pleasure" of a nice juicy steak.

The Jews may be stuck in 3000 BC tradition, the Muslims might be living in the past in their 6th Century wisdom, but most other UK residents of other religions are similarly stuck, doing their ostrich impersonations, in the 19th Century. It's about time they all got real and stopped their collectiv
7

James F,

East Ren 21/03/2008 21:33:56
(Last sentence)

It's about time they all got real and stopped their collective abuse of animals.
8

James F,

East Ren 21/03/2008 21:34:49
G. I think you're right.
9

Beth Boyle,

NY 21/03/2008 21:59:42
Canada when will this stop? I have watched this unfold every year for decades and I would have thought by now you would stop this horror?
10

James F,

East Ren 22/03/2008 01:42:27
Beth, you're quite right. This is Canada's shame; they need to get their house in order.
11

rpb,

22/03/2008 08:55:46
James F: obviously your self imposed, self important diet (why do humans have molars and incisors) is preventing you see the big picture.

You state that humans are about "killing animals for fun and the "pleasure" of a nice juicy steak."

Eh? I hear that meat deniers grow & kill lettuces for fun and then stuff them into their mouths.
12

James F,

East Ren 22/03/2008 09:59:22
rpb. There's an old adage you may wish to review: if you've nothing sensible to say, say nothing at all.

I wouldn't call myself a meat denier - we all arrive at a particular choice of food as a result of social constructivist argument and reflection. You are more influenced by McDonald's advertising and I am more influenced by rational scientific argument - the basis on which our civilisation is founded, allegedly.

You choose to ignore the fact that a non-animal diet is better for us and for the planet; Glasgow University now acknowledge this fact, which is why it is the first UK universlty to have benn awarded the approval of the Vegan Society.

Why do you choose to support a meat based diet which is clearly inferior to a non-animal diet? Have you simply not thought about it and, if that is the case, don't you think you should do that now?
13

rpb,

22/03/2008 19:27:54
James, I hope you're well this eveing.

How superior of you to assume that a Glasgow Uni ststement is more credible than a MacDonald ad.

How presumptive of you to think that I am influenced by Macdonald's advertising!

You claim to be influenced by rational scientific thought, yet happily quote from biblical text - religious prose is hardly a bastion of sane thought.

What I object to is your claim that meat eating is pleasurable, and therefore wrong in your eyes.

Whereas eating vegetables which may also be pleasurable is not wrong.

Confused.

14

James F,

East Ren 23/03/2008 02:51:14
rpb, thank you for your kind thoughts; I hope you too are well.

I would presume that Glasgow University would have more credibility and objectivity than a commercial organisation like McDonald's; I suspect most people would share this view.

If you eat meat you're influenced by pro-meat opinion makers such as McDonald's. Eating meat is not a very clever thing to do when one considers that there are plenty of alternative sources of amino acids, B vitamins, iron, essential fatty acids etc from the plant kingdom.

I can find no evidence of quotes from biblical text in my entries above; I have tried, for the sake of clarifying and contextualising Infidel's comments, to offer a historical perspective on the reasons why Jews and Muslims kill animals without first stunning them. It doesn't justify their treatment of animals but it perhaps explains such treatment. There is, nonetheless, a great deal of sane prose in the bible; it is still the cornerstone of moral thought in the Western world.

You are quite wrong to suggest that I choose to dismiss meat eating because it is pleasurable. We need to eat food of some kind and there is a great deal of pleasure to be had from eating non-animal foods. Eating vegetables is not morally objectionable because plants are in many cases designed to be eaten (e.g. seeds and fruits) and in any case plants do not feel pain. It is also true that eating plants is not normally associated with acquiring E. coli, Listeria, Salmonella, vCJD, premature heart disease, colo-rectal cancer (inter alia).

Eating animals is wrong and therefore morally objectionable because of all these reasons above plus livestock produce 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions, use 10 times more land than plants, require more water than we can afford. The West's taste for meat is depriving many of the poor of the world of a basic healthy diet.

As a society, we need to stop killing animals for food because there is no good reason for doing this; the o
15

James F,

East Ren 23/03/2008 02:52:19
(last paragraph)

As a society, we need to stop killing animals for food because there is no good reason for doing this; the only reason I have been offered for eating meat is that it "tastes good". When we have plenty of tasty plant-based alternatives to meat which do not involve the wanton killing of cows, sheep, pigs and chickens, we have no right to kill these animals for food.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.